When they take away your property to give it to someone else, this violates your property rights. Congress doesen't read anything before voting on it anymore, laws are just written out in a form that's too wordy for that to be practical. The Patriot Act has enough words in it that I'm sure there's plenty in it that I wouldn't be thrilled with it, but after all of this time what I'm dying to know is - What could I do a week before it passed that I can not do anymore?

When they take away your property to give it to someone else, this violates your property rights.

The slow erosion of personal rghts has been going on far longer than just Bursh this time around, and is being done by both sides of the aisle. Bush happens to be the one driving it this time around, but if the Dems really cared, they'd be raking him over the coals in front of the public for it. They certainly have for the war in general and almost everything else.

Logged

=======================Going places unmapped, to do things unplanned, to people unsuspecting

> I think I have a right to the money I earn...redistribution of> wealth is a horrible idea, it accomplishes nothing. That is> the problem with liberal thought, they want immidiate> satisfaction, and that's just not possible. Trickle down! > Trickle down!Trickle down!

i see your opinion. and i'm not saying i totally agree or disagree. i see your point.

> and america is a republic, my mistake. Hate to make excuses,> but I was on drugs when I wrote that (just had some teeth> pulled)

hope they gave ya something good to take! ;)

Logged

"to be is to do" - Socrates"to do is to be" - Jean-Paul Sartre"do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra- kurt vonnegut

I say that 100% of the facts in the movie are completely true.Here is a list of the sources Moore used for the film, there are six pages filled with quotes from articles from many independent sources.http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=16And there is also nothing new in this film since everything have been published before.He has also used several lawyers that picked the movie apart to look for flaws before it was released.

Regarding Mr Moores opinions, it's a free country and he's entitled to his opinion.

That davekopel page was very large, but I found this little piece.[The verb tense of past perfect ("had taken")..... ]It seems they are attacking the grammar since there aren't any factual flaws in the movie.

The lawyers picked it apart to look for anywhere that LIBEL can be proven. Not the same as verifying that it's accurate, and only really necessary when you're trying to get as close to libel as you can without actually committing it. The fact that it had to be reviewed by team of lawyers does not favour it being 100% honest.

There is also a difference between the truth and the whole truth, which is why witnesses swear to tell both.

Journalism is my profession. In my work, I've seen a few people who practice Moore's unscrupulous brand of journalism, and I've seen a lot of gullible people like you, who insist that something couldn't be distributed to the public if it weren't true, or that putting together a bunch of 100% true facts will always yield truth. It's all in which facts you use, how much explanation you give, and how you put it together, along with the general tone of your work. I could write an article that was entirely factual, yet completely misleading and extremely damaging to someone, and no lawyer could find a trace of genuine libel in it. I don't, for obvious reasons.

Don't go dragging up this tired old dead horse of a thread unless you know what you're talking about.

I think Freep has proven a good point. Does this help everyone understand what Moore is doing? 100% of what is said in both of those is fact in the fullest, but is the end result resonable??? Of course not.Farenheit 9/11 newly titled:"The Dangers of Bread, Water, and Bush"